Site Presented By
Saturday, Nov 7, 2009
Great handling by Obama.
From MSNBC--http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/04/1349429.aspx
and at sig...
On the community organizer criticism: "They [Republicans] haven't talked about the fact that I was a civil rights lawyer; they haven't talked about the fact that I taught constitutional law; they haven't talked about my work in the state legislature, in the United States Senate," he said. "They're talking about the three years of work that I did right out of college as if that's-- I'm making the leap from two or three years out of college into the presidency."
Obama added though that his work as a community organizer was relevant to who he is and the kind of people he's "fighting for."
"Why would that kind of work be ridiculous?" Obama said. "Who are they fighting for? What are they advocating for? They think that the lives of those folks who are struggling each and every day, that working with them to try to improve their lives is somehow not relevant to the presidency? I think maybe that's the problem -- that's part of why they're out of touch and they don't get it 'cause they haven't spent much time working on behalf of those folks."
Having been a member of that maligned special interest group, I appreciate the props! You tell em Barry O!
Actual..... brutal personality and cultural attacks. And this is only the first three pages.... [followed by a compendium of excerpts from posts by mere commenters here]
Here's the way it works, Sh**ter: "You stop telling lies about us, and we'll stop telling the truth about you."
Deal?
Cheers,
Is that community organizers work to patch the gaps left by indifferent or ignorant city councils and mayors. In fact, being a mayor is nothing like being a community organizer. If anything, its like being a public advocate to the mayor, who is usually more interested in corporate interests than community ones.
is like being an advocate...
[to our friend Sh**ter]: If you are calling for a more refined discourse,...
... like Sh**ter does, calling me a prick.
Cheers,
It turns out that Palin went on BusinessWeek and said this (from thinkprogress):
"We are a nation at war and in many [ways] the reasons for war are fights over energy sources, which is nonsensical when you consider that domestically we have the supplies ready to go."
In May, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) also said that he plans to “eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.” He later backtracked from his comments, denying that he meant to imply that the Iraq war was fought over oil.
In June, Palin told Glenn Beck, "The average Alaskan says again we recognize these reserves being ready to be tapped. … We're ready to contribute more to the U.S. in terms of resources that can lead to a safer nation; and I say this while our nation is at war, while we're fighting, in some sense, over energy supplies."
Not about oil? Of course not! These facts - that Iraq has the world's largest reserves of cheap light oil, that Bush and Cheney lied to the public about Iraq's nuclear and biological weapons, and that U.S. officials actually wrote the Iraqi Oil Law for the benefit of Exxon, Chevron, BP, etc - these facts are irrelevant.
Completely irrelevant.
And Sarah Palin is NOT a tool of BP, and it is totally unfair to call her a corporate welfare queen.
What is a "corporate welfare queen"? Well, that's someone who rides to political power by giving international corporate interests whatever they want, in exchange for some financial support:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BGE3cX3ZWQ
Then certainly she must have been hammering home the point that it’s been 7 GODDAMN YEARS SINCE 9.11 and absolutely NOTHING has been done to get Osama Bin Laden –...
... not to mention the maladministration's benign neglect of the recommendations of the 9/11 commission, for which the watchdog group they created to track such progress has been giving the maladministration "D"s and "F"s for....
Cheers,
I agree with Karen22's quotes from Susan Faludi. In fact I brought them up with one of the critics of Gitmo, Andy Worthington.
Here's the problem for the Democrats (and Camille Paglia also alluded to it in Salon recently): They are on the defensive because a lot of them are urban types, rich and poor, who never lived on the land and whose origins in America took them through places like Ellis Island or who came even more recently.
So, as Paglia says, they try to do the folksy thing the way Madonna tries to do the faux British thing -- and of course it falls flat.
Our popular music -- Woody Guthrie begat Bob Dylan who begat Bruce Springsteen (Tom Pettie figures in there somewhere) draws on those roots. But notice Guthrie was about something a lot bigger. The country beat is one thing, but earmarks and subsidies and "welfare ranching" is the reality. Water rights in the desert, stuff like that. There IS no frontier left, not even Alaska. It's all divvied up and used. Why that happened post Civil War. A big grid was forced onto the land.
So all this talk about the land is nostalgia and that is where people sort of live.
I was aware of the Indians at the door analogy on 9/11, in fact I totally bought into it. I felt besieged like my ancestors, who fell in their fields to the hatchet blows of the Abenakis in the 1600's, but even though I lived in the West, my family has been, deep down, as East Coast as the Bushes (our distant cousins).
So what is it? This is like Celtic music or something. It just stirs the emotions. That's where the Republicans want us to live. Someone said that where candidates are concerned, the Democrats are the ones who fall in love and Republicans chose on the basis of interest.
Okay, so Sarah Palin is love bait. She was put out to make people fall for her (men in the Republican/ Independent category have fallen hard). Do the Democrats go there? Or do the Democrats strip the veil off the illusions of small town and country? Do the Democrats dare to ruin the sacred truths about this nation? Remember when people wanted to believe Charles and Diana had a fairytale marriage? And then it turned out that her ancestry had a better claim to the throne than his? I remember when Germaine Greer pointed out that Stuart ancestry and I thought it so irrelevant. Maybe it was, but this was not a marriage of love but of convenience.
Sarah Palin is there for CONVENIENCE. She is the oil and gas princess. She is pro-war, too. Let's rip the veil off the bride.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The Maine fight was supposed to be the dress rehearsal for repealing California's Prop. 8 -- but gay marriage lost
Once one obtains Seriousness credentials in the Washington media, they are irrevocable no matter one's conduct.
Salon headlines in your mailbox
